Simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings are permitted; acquittal in criminal trials does not prevent disciplinary action based on different standards of proof.

ORDER :

B.PUGALENDHI, J. 

The petitioner, who is working as a Grade I warder at Vellore was placed under suspension and he has also been issued with a charge memo by the order impugned in this writ petition that he, along with his wife, have involved in a criminal case in Crime No.815 of 2022. The petitioner has challenged the charge memo on the ground that the charge memo is nothing but a verbatim of the First Information report, which is still under the investigation.

2.When this writ petition is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Inspector of Police, Tamil University Police station has registered a criminal case as against this petitioner and his wife in Crime No.815 of 2022, for the offence under Section 506 (i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of charging exorbitant interest Act, on 25.11.2022 and a final report has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Thanjavur and the same was taken on file in CC No. 1440 of 2025 on 04.09.2025.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the following judgments

i. M.Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another , reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679 .

ii. SBI and others Vs. R.B.Sharma , reported in 2004 (7) SCC 27 .

iii. IOB Vs. P.Ganesan and Others reported in 2008 (1) SCC 650

iv. P.Ravikumar Vs. the Deputy General Manager , reported in 2011 SCC online Mad 2179

submits that the departmental proceedings needs to be kept pending till the disposal of the criminal trial.

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

5.Pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for withholding the disciplinary proceedings. This Court, by considering various judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order in WP(MD) No. 13621 of 2022, dated 06.01.2025 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:-

5. Insofar as the petitioner's plea is concerned, there is no legal bar for simultaneous conduct of departmental and criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, time and again, reiterated that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations as in the criminal case and also permitted the disciplinary authorities to conclude the departmental proceedings without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, inasmuch as a criminal case should be proved beyond reasonable doubt by adducing oral and documentary evidence, whereas charges in the departmental proceedings should be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

6. The observations made by a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [ 2005 (7) SCC 764 ], are extracted as under:-

“11. ... In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings criminal and departmental - are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to ord